I learned James Crumbley, father of Ethan Crumbley (who shot four fellow students at Oxford High School to death when he was 15, in Detroit Michigan in 2021) was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. This follows Jennifer Crumbley, mother of Ethan, being found guilty of the same crime. The parents face a max prison sentence of 60 years and a fine of up to US$ 30,000. Ethan, the killer, now 17, was earlier found guilty of murder and sentenced to life behind bars without possibility of parole:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ial-rcna143174This case raises the question of parental responsibility. Involuntary manslaughter essentially means a crime of "gross negligence". The defendants knew the risk their son would likely commit an act of murder yet choose to ignore it and do nothing to stop that crime from happening. Its a tricky charge not always easy to prove. In the past, when we got cases of high school shooting by students, the parents usually weren't charged. Now there are exceptions every now and then, when the parents of the teenage killer was charged with child abuse and careless handling and storage of guns (making the weapon easy to get by the kid), but involuntary manslaughter charges against parents were relatively rare...until this case.
Why did the prosecutors elect to charge the parents? The facts were 'egregious' claimed the prosecutors. The parents bought Ethan the gun and took him to target practice. All the while they ignored Ethan's increasingly worrying mental state. "After being told that her son was searching for ammo on his phone at school, Jennifer Crumbley told her son via text messages not to get caught: "LOL I'm not mad. You have to learn not to get caught." Neither of the parents opted to remove their son from school after being told that a teacher found a disturbing drawing of a bloody figure in his desk. Finally, the gun was unsecured.":
https://theconversation.com/gross-ne...-crimes-225836During closing arguments Wednesday, McDonald, the prosecutor, said the deaths were "preventable and foreseeable" if Crumbley had done any number of "tragically small efforts," and she attempted to undercut the defense by telling jurors that parents can be responsible gun owners no matter if their child is planning a mass shooting. "This case is not a statement about guns. It's not a statement about parental responsibility. It's not a case about kids doing kid things," she said.
So what do you think? Should the parents have been charged (and found guilty) of involuntary manslaughter? Would this set a new precedent on parental responsibility? And most importantly, would it make a difference? Would parents, who otherwise are careless and negligent about proper control and storage of their firearms, think twice now to prevent a tragedy?
